Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (12282)	12/30/2001 2:27:37 PM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

I like #5. Go tell it on the mountain. Re >>...easier to solve than most of the economists think<< SOLVE? You solve problems, but we have no problem here on hand, do we? Mq says, (CO2) emissions are good for your health. And he's an honorable man. At least there's nothing CDMA and good ol' DNA could not take care of. dj

To: Moominoid who wrote (12282)	12/30/2001 8:18:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<1. Global climate change in the last 150 years is real and is largely anthropogenic> David, that's quite exciting! It means, if true, that people are in charge of a very big thing. We can actually turn ice-ages on and off. That is so good. More importantly, we can stop them encroaching and prevent overheating. Not only that, our ability to pump CO2 in and out of the atmosphere is increasing. So we can exert even more control. Wait until we start planting Australia in pine trees and by making it green, really bringing some heat down to ground level [by avoiding the reflection from light-coloured desert dust; which I know is actually fairly red in much of Australia, but it's still lighter coloured than dark green and much more reflective]. With Australia, and maybe the Sahara and Saudi Arabia and the desert regions of the USA covered in dark green, we'll really be pumping! We can haul fossil hydrocarbons across Afghanistan and give tax concessions for people who buy huge SUVs to really get CO2 into the ecosphere for the pine trees to eat. We can seed the oceans with iron and other nutrients and have seething sea life instead of fairly dead seas. We can store huge lakes of liquid CO2 400 metres under the ocean in case we need a lot more in a hurry. Power stations could compress their exhaust and drop the liquid into nearby water [over 400 metres deep, which provides the necessary pressure to maintain a liquid phase for CO2 at ambient temperatures]. The energy cost is only about 20% extra. Then, if the sun gets a bit lazy, we can turn the CO2 loose, replant billions of trees, green it up and insulate the earth and avoid a 4 kilometre deep layer of ice over Europe. If the sun starts cooking a bit more, we can cut down trees, put them in the power station furnaces, pump the CO2 under the water and let radiation from deserts and less greenhouse gas keep us cool. We are so damn great!! Yayy people.... I'm with you that the radiative forcing, heating, cooling and snow cover are much faster than people normally think. My guess is about 5 years for cooling as the snow cover races south in the northern hemisphere [and north in the southern], extremely rapidly increasing reflection of incident radiation. For now though, we need more CO2, so let's get the UN running right, straighten up Afghanistan and build a big pipeline south. OPEC is off their rockers - cutting production!! Hahaaahah!! What losers.... then again, on the other hand, they might as well maintain high prices because if they let prices drop, stupid governments who are freaked out by the greenhouse shroud-waving will raise taxes to reduce consumption. OPEC might as well cut out the middle man. Hooray for George W, canceling the Kyoto stuff. I would tell George W that we are making great progress in avoiding an ice age, warming the place up and feeding Gaia's flora [and therefore fauna]. We should thank Americans and their SUVs for making a large contribution to this effort at great cost to themselves [a tank of gas in an SUV costs enough to feed most people for a month]. Mqurice

To: Moominoid who wrote (12282)	12/31/2001 3:36:34 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi David - Re:Carbon Mitigation - You realize that smaller emissions cuts and realtively easy technical change will NOT make some people happy, as they were looking for a rationale to vastly extend government and create economic dislocation they could benefit from finanacially & politically. By the way, could you explain why Canada is so against Global Warming ? It's well above sea level and really cold there.

To: Moominoid who wrote (12282)	12/31/2001 12:18:43 PM
From: oconnellc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

David, I'm not sure what your experience is in preparing this report. I'll admit that mine is kind of anecdotal. However, my masters thesis was on developing a method of measuring/predicting energy usage in large public buildings (for the most part, elementary schools). One thing I attempted to do was correlate energy usage with outside temperature before and after making changes to the heating systems of those buildings. My single largest problem was getting accurate temperature data. This was not temperature history, but just finding out the high and low temperature each day. In some cases, the nearest temperature readings I could trust and were taken every day were over 50 miles away. So, when someone tells me that they know what the weather was like 150 years ago (at least enough to tell me the the average temperature is .75 degrees higher now then it was then), I don't believe them. Chris